Denis Centeno-Rosales v. William Barr ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1865
DENIS ORLANDO CENTENO-ROSALES,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: January 31, 2020 Decided: February 7, 2020
Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin J. Osorio, MURRAY OSORIO PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph
H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Victor M. Lawrence, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Matthew A. Connelly, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Denis Orlando Centeno-Rosales, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from
the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the
petition for review.
We conclude that Centeno-Rosales was not denied due process because the IJ found
that Centeno-Rosales did not submit his expert’s statement and curriculum vitae on time.
Due process, in the context of an immigration hearing, requires that aliens be given “an
opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, i.e., [to] receive
a full and fair hearing on their claims.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 321-22 (4th Cir. 2002).
To establish a due process violation during removal proceedings, an alien must show: “(1)
that a defect in the proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair and (2) that the defect
prejudiced the outcome of the case.” Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008).
Centeno-Rosales has not shown that the IJ’s decision to exclude evidence was based on a
defect in the proceeding. Centeno-Rosales’ argument that the IJ did not impose a filing
deadline was not raised on appeal to the Board. An alien who fails to raise a particular
claim before the Board fails to exhaust that claim. See Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder, 780
F.3d 205, 210 (4th Cir. 2015). This exhaustion requirement is applied to both “final orders
of removal globally” and “particular claims specifically.” Shaw v. Sessions, 898 F.3d 448,
456 (4th Cir. 2018) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
2
We further conclude that the Board’s finding that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding
was not clearly erroneous is support by substantial evidence. Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d
199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015). The IJ cited specific discrepancies concerning Centeno-Rosales’
claim that he was assaulted on two occasions by Salvadoran police because he was
suspected of being a gang member. “A single testimonial discrepancy, particularly when
supported by other facts in the record, may be sufficient to find an applicant incredible in
some circumstances.” Id. at 207. We also conclude that, after reviewing the independent
evidence, Centeno-Rosales’ status as a suspected gang member and the warrant for his
arrest based on his failure to appear in court for a hearing to address the charge of gang
membership does not compel a finding that he will be persecuted on account of a protected
ground.
Lastly, while the agency gave short shrift to Centeno-Rosales’ independent evidence
in denying his eligibility for protection under the CAT, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the finding that Centeno-Rosales failed to show that the Salvadoran
government intended to torture him. See Oxygene v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 541, 550 (4th Cir.
2016) (adopting intent standard for CAT claims as announced in In re J-E-, 23 I. & N. Dec.
291 (B.I.A. 2002)).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3